About your Search

20121128
20121206
Search Results 0 to 25 of about 26 (some duplicates have been removed)
to the system do you think are required? how deep? >> please understand that current law, the president's law right now, the law of the land, makes it so that medicare, medicaid and social security all are on a road to insolvency. that's the current law. we believe that those three programs, medicaid, medicare and social security need to be saved and strengthened and secured. through our budget proposal we've had out the last two years we have put forward a proposal that actually makes it so that current retirees, current medicare recipients see no change whatsoever but in fact we save and secure the program for future generations. that the medicaid program which again is on a path to insolvency and states are complaining vociferously about this that we actually save that program from a financial standpoint. there are wonderful proposals on the table about solving and saving social security. you can't address the spending issues without fundamental really form and real solutions for medicare, medicaid and social security. >> brown: just to stay with you, won't those be unpopular? after this e
by the press. >> reporter: but david cameron said the judge had got it wrong. laws controlling newspapers could mushroom into censorship. he said he wanted changes the way newspapers regulate themselves but not new laws. >> the issue of principle is that for the first time we would have crossed the rubicon of writing elements of press regulation into the law of the land. we should, i believe, be wary of any legislation that has the potential to infringe free speech and a free suppress. >> hear hear! >> reporter: describes the phone hacking and other intrusions suffered by innocent victims like millie dougher will, justice leveson depicted a press out of control, those "reckless regard for accuracy" would resist and dismiss complainants almost a matter of course and "showed a recklessness in prioritizing sensational stories almost irrespective of the harm caused, heedless of the public interest." >> good morning. any thoughts today? >> rupert murdoch in new york today, the judge also said there was no evidence to support allegations that there was a grand bargain between the tory leadership and
, it is not an automatic. if they do pursue citizenship-- which they can under the law as it is today-- they would go behind the people who are already in line so that there is a fairness in the system to those who have waited for years to become regularized. but they will have a preference in that they will be here legally, can work, and build up all of their seniority while they are waiting in the line. >> suarez: senator, would you say the prospects for a bill of this kind have changed? have gotten better since the election? >> i do think that people are now realizing that we've got to have immigration reform and speaking only for myself i believe that doing immigration reform in pieces is going to be achievable rather than trying to do comprehensive which gets bogged down in extraneous issues that make it very hard to come to a total big conclusion. >> suarez: representative gutierrez, today the hispanic caucus laid out a set of principles it would want to see in any immigration reform bills. given what you and the caucus members said today, is the senator's achieve proposal at least a place to b
't read your email unless regulated by law. there are 33 instances of this in the constitution. it would be, of course, the parliament that writes the law. there's a lot of concern that isn't a longstanding clear contract between the people in the government but really another way for the brotherhood to expand its power grab here. >> brown: nancy yousef of mcclatchy in cairo, thanks so much. >> ifill: we'll continue our conversation series in the days to come. we get a very different take on this. paul krug man is a nobel prize winning economist at princeton university and a columnist for the "new york times." he joins us now. ers kin bowles may be one of the people you have written about in the past who you called deficit... who were touting a phantom menace known as the fiscal cliff. am i right about that? >> fiscal cliff is not a phantom menace. the deficit right now is. the notion that something terrible will happen if we don't deal with the deficit right away. the fiscal cliff is a very different story. that's about reducing the deficit too fast. >> ifill: you call it an austerity b
. and i drove to my mother-in-law's house to let her verify what i had thought i had seen. and that's what it was. >> sreenivasan: the hills opted for a lump sum payment. after taxes, that comes to $136 million. there's been no official word on who holds the other winning ticket. it was sold in arizona, but a surveillance camera at a convenience store in maryland recorded this man on thursday, checking the numbers and apparently discovering he's the other winner. he did not give his name. wall street had a quiet ending to the week. the dow jones industrial average gained three points to close at 13,025. the nasdaq fell one point to close at 3,010. for the week, the dow gained just a fraction of a percent; the nasdaq rose 1.5%. those are some of the day's major stories. now, back to jeff. >> brown: george washington famously described the senate as "the saucer that cools the tea," a body designed to soothe "hot" legislation that emerged from the house of representatives. but as congressional correspondent kwame holman reports, some senators have gotten pretty steamed over a proposed change
warned the syrian government not to use chemical weapons on its people. online, an update to a law in saudi arabia renews a debate about male guardianship. hari sreenivasan has more. >> sreenivasan: now whenever a saudi woman leaves the country, her husband or father receives a text message. the recent changes to the long- held system of male guardianship sparked outrage on twitter recently. i spoke to a journalist in saudi arabia who says the practice reinforces male control. our conversation is in the rundown. today's science roundup features dragonflies, or as one science writer calls them "the bengal tigers of the microworld." find the story on our home page. how can you secure a larger social security payment from an ex-spouse? the answer is in this week's installment of "ask larry." all that and more is on our web site, newshour.pbs.org. gwen? >> ifill: and that's the newshour for tonight. on tuesday, we'll look at turkey's request for nato to deploy patriot missiles along its border with syria. i'm gwen ifill. >> brown: and i'm jeffrey brown. we'll see you online, and again
most of which at some point in time is going to become law. and the longer we put this off, the deeper the hole gets, so we're trying to focus on how do we get this done now-- >> woodruff: let me ask you about part of your plan. part of it would means test social security, medicare benefits. in order, the benefits would go down for those at the higher income levels. we had the economist paul krugman on the "newshour" last night who said that, you know, not only do the polls show many american oppose, this but he said the benefit you get, the money that would be raised from doing that is really not enough to overcome the pain that he said it would cause lower and middle-income americans. >> well, first of all, it would cause no pain to lower and middle-income citizens because they wouldn't be affected. and i agree, it's only one of the things that needs to occur. it's a small part. there are many manager transformative things that need to happen in social security and medicare and my bill outlines both transformative things to really make them solvent. there's a $27 trillion unfund lieb
Search Results 0 to 25 of about 26 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)